GRcade

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I've never understood why a Tory and Lib Dem pact always seems more possible than a Labour one. For as long a so can remember, generally Lib Dem and Labour have been pretty much aligned on policy. The only big disagreement I remember was over the Iraq war.

But when you compare Lib Dem policy to Tory policy, there are very little similarities.

Has anybody said a Tory/LD pact is more possible?

I’d say that was utterly impossible at the moment with their Brexit stances.

Left wingers see the LDs as centre-right, right wingers see them as centre-left. They are either Tory stooges or loony lefties.

Sorry Moggy, didn't see this until this morning. I meant outside of the Brexit debate, it always seems more likely the LDs would go in with the Tories rather than Labour. It always baffles me. When you look at the coalition in 2010, LD support was destroyed because they followed Tory policy which was so completely at odds with their own values, and indeed manifesto.

Take the tuition fee debacle. They'd probably have got that policy through, or something very close to it, if they went into power with Labour in 2010. Instead they found themselves wedded to austerity and doing the exact opposite.

I think the Lib Dem support was closer to Labour in 2010 but Clegg saw the chance of an electoral reform referendum and a chance of being in government and betrayed his voters.

After a period in the wilderness they have regained some support thanks to their anti-Brexit stance. Which again means their support is anti-Tory. Hopefully they’ve realised getting into bed with Tories is a bad idea if the chance of another coalition comes along.

I think Swinson and Johnson are so opposed on Brexit that they wouldn’t be able to betray voters again. But a sniff of power and a Brexit referendum? Who knows, I wouldn’t put it past her.

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I've never understood why a Tory and Lib Dem pact always seems more possible than a Labour one. For as long a so can remember, generally Lib Dem and Labour have been pretty much aligned on policy. The only big disagreement I remember was over the Iraq war.

But when you compare Lib Dem policy to Tory policy, there are very little similarities.

Has anybody said a Tory/LD pact is more possible?

I’d say that was utterly impossible at the moment with their Brexit stances.

Left wingers see the LDs as centre-right, right wingers see them as centre-left. They are either Tory stooges or loony lefties.

Sorry Moggy, didn't see this until this morning. I meant outside of the Brexit debate, it always seems more likely the LDs would go in with the Tories rather than Labour. It always baffles me. When you look at the coalition in 2010, LD support was destroyed because they followed Tory policy which was so completely at odds with their own values, and indeed manifesto.

Take the tuition fee debacle. They'd probably have got that policy through, or something very close to it, if they went into power with Labour in 2010. Instead they found themselves wedded to austerity and doing the exact opposite.

I think the Lib Dem support was closer to Labour in 2010 but Clegg saw the chance of an electoral reform referendum and a chance of being in government and betrayed his voters.

After a period in the wilderness they have regained some support thanks to their anti-Brexit stance. Which again means their support is anti-Tory. Hopefully they’ve realised getting into bed with Tories is a bad idea if the chance of another coalition comes along.

I think Swinson and Johnson are so opposed on Brexit that they wouldn’t be able to betray voters again. But a sniff of power and a Brexit referendum? Who knows, I wouldn’t put it past her.

Also a LAB/LD coalition would have had a very small working majority and would have given a lot of ammo to the Tory party as they were the single biggest at the time.

I actually think that it was more the student loan increase than the coalition that killed the LD. They should have just tried to leave the fee stuff alone.

twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1171694711700119557

Tafdolphin wrote:

twitter.com/Peston/status/1171757156317761536

Excellent!

51:49?

That's way too close to call. If it was 52:48 then reunification would have an overwhelming majority.

The 5% of unionists who would vote for a united Ireland is quite something.

Technically I'm from a Unionist background but I'd rather be in Ireland in the EU vs being in the UK outside of the EU.

Cuttooth wrote:The 5% of unionists who would vote for a united Ireland is quite something.

The 2% of Nationalists that would stay in the UK are even more interesting. It's like when you see a poll of Brexit Party members donators and 1% would rather we Remain.

Garth wrote:

twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1171694711700119557

Aren't they meant to have a referendum on reunification if polls show that the Republicans would win?

Garth wrote:Technically I'm from a Unionist background but I'd rather be in Ireland in the EU vs being in the UK outside of the EU.

Oh yeah absolutely, I didn't mean that in the 'UKIP supporters voting Remain' sense of disbelief - more that it's simply striking how there are self described Unionists who would take the opportunity to leave the Union, and how that is something that can't continue to be ignored.

Am I right in saying a referendum on a unified Ireland would have to be held in both the North and Republic?

That is correct, though all indications are that it would be a landslide in the south.

Karl_ wrote:That is correct, though all indications are that it would be a landslide in the south.

Forgive my ignorance, but a landslide in which direction?

Winckle wrote:

Karl_ wrote:That is correct, though all indications are that it would be a landslide in the south.

Forgive my ignorance, but a landslide in which direction?

Here's a recent poll from the ROI:

65% for, 19% against. There is quite strong support for reunification south of the border.

Basically just waiting for the old people to die.

Theres always strong support for reunification in the south, its very difficult for people to say no to a united Ireland and the island becoming whole again. Even though I would have strong reservations about the return of violence and terrorism and whether NI would be a drain the the economy and resources of the Republic, reunification still just feels like the right thing to do.

I’m surprised it’s as low as that to be honest.

Imagine if Corbyn had lied to the Queen, it's be all over The Sun and Daily Mail for days. Boris does it and not a word.

satriales wrote:Imagine if Corbyn had lied to the Queen, it's be all over The Sun and Daily Mail for days. Boris does it and not a word.

It really helps him that Parliament is prorogued as it prevents further questions from MPs. The whole process around this prorogation really needs proper scrutiny from MPs.

captain red dog wrote:

satriales wrote:Imagine if Corbyn had lied to the Queen, it's be all over The Sun and Daily Mail for days. Boris does it and not a word.

It really helps him that Parliament is prorogued as it prevents further questions from MPs. The whole process around this prorogation really needs proper scrutiny from MPs.

Prorogation has nothing to do with the fact that the papers have essentially buried the story.
The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Telegraph are actual Conservative party propaganda at this point.

Yeah that's true. I'm amazed frankly how little scrutiny Boris has had. We have a PM in power and we don't even know really basic things like how many kids he has. Not that having kids should matter, but any other PM it would just be known information.

I can't help but feel his lack of scrutiny is down to right leaning newspapers and probably his good contacts in press rooms from his time as a "journalist".